Logical arguments won't save you from expulsion if you're a male student accused by a female student. Want to know why?
College boys know that logic won't get them anywhere with college girls, but they think they can score points by supporting feminist causes and signing petitions to waive their own civil rights -- and yours. I have seen expel-on-accusation petitions.
College administrations know that logical arguments won't save them in case of an "unsafe environment" lawsuit, but they think they'll wind up paying smaller settlements if they write ridiculously anti-male student conduct policies, and enforce them hard on any male student whom any female student complains about. I have seen policies that -- read literally -- can be construed to classify looking at a female student as sexual misconduct.
President Obama has lost a lot of popular support over the past year or two, but he seems to think he can win some back by pandering to feminists and leaning on universities, insinuating that they must pillory their male students if they want to keep getting federal funds.
Seriously, at what point do you think the accused can just say "this makes no logical sense" and get justice?
"[T]he point is that if you take *specific* steps to avoid the security in place that can be used as evidence that you A) knew there was security in place B) that you took steps to avoid it, which can be used as evidence that C) you knew what you were doing was prohibited."
1. You've taken a big step back, from "criminal" to "prohibited". 2. Step B seems superfluous; whether I know that something is prohibited or not does not depend on whether I'm doing it. 3. It's extremely weak evidence in any case.
I'm pretty sure you're not serious, but... "malicious data copying" really gives rise to some hilarious mental images.
My favorite so far is similar to the Comfy Chair torture in Monty Python's "Spanish Inquisition" sketch, but in a "Tron" setting, and with Vincent Price if at all possible.
"[I]n a criminal trial about whether his attempts to access those documents on a network were criminal, any extra steps he used to avoid the network security could be used as evidence against him, that he was taking extra steps to get around security that was designed to stop an individual from doing what he was doing on that specific network."
If he took steps to circumvent barriers, and those steps were of themselves criminal, then those actions were themselves criminal, not evidence about something else.
If those steps were not criminal in and of themselves, then I don't see how taking them was evidence of anything except ingenuity (which, I'll grant you, is being slowly criminalized).
"I want my taxi to be insured, safe, with a driver that has not been convicted of any sexual offences, and at a price that is regulated." [emphasis added]
I want all that plus leather upholstery and Dom Pérignon on ice, and I want you to pay for it all.
You can describe the service you're willing to buy at a free market price, or you can say that you want Someone Else to pay for your ride.
This wasn't a strike in the conventional sense of refusing to work, it was daylight sabotage. The surface messages, "Apply the law equally!", "Don't destroy our livelihood!" was for public consumption (and for the less intelligent cabbies to believe). The real message was to government: "Suppress this new competitor, protect the monopoly you sold us, or we'll damage the economy."
It doesn't matter how much business they send Uber's way, if they succeed in getting Uber banned.
And I'll bet the smarter cabbies are talking very quietly to people in city government: "You know all those big, fat license fees we pay you? Who's going to pay you if Uber forces us out of business?"
"It's a chatbot. It's a script made to mimic human conversation. There is no intelligence, artificial or not involved. It's just a chatbot."
The test is about behavior, not internal structure. That's the whole point. A machine that could pass a fair Turing test consistently would change the world, and a mere script that could pass would change the world a lot faster than a 10-ton helium-cooled supercomputer with the same score. Remember, anything a person of average intelligence can do by email, one of these machines can do.
The first machine to pass this test will almost certainly be the simplest, least intelligent machine that could. But before you sneer, remember that we're the simplest, least intelligent animals that can, and that some of the most profound discoveries of modern science involve nature doing subtle and sophisticated things by means of simple mechanisms.
Computability, deterministicity and computational tractability are three different things. (And for what it's worth, I know of no persuasive argument associating chaotic systems with conscious systems in any way.) So please, anyone who wants to argue about these things, know what the terms mean and don't just mix them together in a word salad.
I've worked my way through only a few pages of the "consciousness is non-computable" essay, and of the (apparently unpublished and unreviewed) paper it cites...
I would think the German government would be very serious about destroying German love notes, after a bundle of them on a U-boat changed the course of WWII.
By that reasoning, every time a child draws a picture of aliens blasting the city with their ray guns, someone should get on the phone to SAC/NORAD.
If we, as a society, tend to blame people for not picking up miniscule clues to extremely rare events, then we as a society should get a grip. We must accept the fact that extremely rare disasters sometimes happen, and not expand half our energy looking for someone to blame, and the other half making ourselves utterly blame-proof.
He cannot prove that he has deleted the photos, but if he is caught in possession of them later I presume he'll be in hot water.
On the other hand, if somebody submits them anonymously to a few sites where such pictures are shared (outside this court's jurisdiction), then he can look at them whenever he likes while keeping his hard drive 100% clean.
I doubt the court meant to set up such incentives.
It's true that the versions on the SC site are sometimes out of date (I missed that on the first reading), but the "final version" is what is published in the United States Reports (apart from the "occasional order formally revising an opinion" that has already been published). So maintaining the archive would be a bit more onerous than I thought, perhaps involving an OCR scanner and a visit to the public library.
If you can point me to one case in which a version not yet published was used in court, I'll eat my words and apologize for missing the point. Twice.
The SC publishes an "early version" and later on a "final version" (with a slowness and confusion of authority that I find sickening). So grab both versions as they appear, and you have your archive.
(There may be intermediate versions that the public can't get, but I fail to see how they would be of any practical use for those not writing a book on the SC).
But now that I think of it, there is one advantage to having access to the closed papers. Not so much in having access to the revision history that the public can't see at all, but in reading the final version before anyone else. This is a separate issue from the secrecy of revision histories, but I can think of a few ways it could be valuable to know what the law will say next year, before my competitors, if I were very wealthy...
If displays of SC rulings can be censored with or without the DMCA (and I'm not saying that they can't), that's a serious problem even if the SC revision history is pubic.
You're pointing to a (hypothetical) problem that has nothing to do with secrecy of the SC revision history.
On the post: College Reacts To Negative Press By Attempting To Seal Court Documents Exposing Its Ridiculous Actions
Re: Re:
College boys know that logic won't get them anywhere with college girls, but they think they can score points by supporting feminist causes and signing petitions to waive their own civil rights -- and yours. I have seen expel-on-accusation petitions.
College administrations know that logical arguments won't save them in case of an "unsafe environment" lawsuit, but they think they'll wind up paying smaller settlements if they write ridiculously anti-male student conduct policies, and enforce them hard on any male student whom any female student complains about. I have seen policies that -- read literally -- can be construed to classify looking at a female student as sexual misconduct.
President Obama has lost a lot of popular support over the past year or two, but he seems to think he can win some back by pandering to feminists and leaning on universities, insinuating that they must pillory their male students if they want to keep getting federal funds.
Seriously, at what point do you think the accused can just say "this makes no logical sense" and get justice?
On the post: When Aaron Swartz Spoofed His MAC Address, It Proved He Was A Criminal; When Apple Does It, It's Good For Everyone
Re: Right...
On the post: When Aaron Swartz Spoofed His MAC Address, It Proved He Was A Criminal; When Apple Does It, It's Good For Everyone
Re: Uh, no.
1. You've taken a big step back, from "criminal" to "prohibited".
2. Step B seems superfluous; whether I know that something is prohibited or not does not depend on whether I'm doing it.
3. It's extremely weak evidence in any case.
On the post: When Aaron Swartz Spoofed His MAC Address, It Proved He Was A Criminal; When Apple Does It, It's Good For Everyone
Re:
My favorite so far is similar to the Comfy Chair torture in Monty Python's "Spanish Inquisition" sketch, but in a "Tron" setting, and with Vincent Price if at all possible.
On the post: When Aaron Swartz Spoofed His MAC Address, It Proved He Was A Criminal; When Apple Does It, It's Good For Everyone
Re: Context counts in criminal trials
If he took steps to circumvent barriers, and those steps were of themselves criminal, then those actions were themselves criminal, not evidence about something else.
If those steps were not criminal in and of themselves, then I don't see how taking them was evidence of anything except ingenuity (which, I'll grant you, is being slowly criminalized).
On the post: Taxi Drivers In Europe 'Protest' Uber, Creating Astounding Media Attention, Massive Jump In Signups
Re: taxi protests
I want all that plus leather upholstery and Dom Pérignon on ice, and I want you to pay for it all.
You can describe the service you're willing to buy at a free market price, or you can say that you want Someone Else to pay for your ride.
On the post: Quick Hack Will Now Alert People When The Supreme Court Quietly Changes Rulings On Its Site
On the post: Taxi Drivers In Europe 'Protest' Uber, Creating Astounding Media Attention, Massive Jump In Signups
Re: Didn't think this through
It doesn't matter how much business they send Uber's way, if they succeed in getting Uber banned.
And I'll bet the smarter cabbies are talking very quietly to people in city government: "You know all those big, fat license fees we pay you? Who's going to pay you if Uber forces us out of business?"
On the post: No, A 'Supercomputer' Did NOT Pass The Turing Test For The First Time And Everyone Should Know Better
the forest is trees
The test is about behavior, not internal structure. That's the whole point. A machine that could pass a fair Turing test consistently would change the world, and a mere script that could pass would change the world a lot faster than a 10-ton helium-cooled supercomputer with the same score. Remember, anything a person of average intelligence can do by email, one of these machines can do.
The first machine to pass this test will almost certainly be the simplest, least intelligent machine that could. But before you sneer, remember that we're the simplest, least intelligent animals that can, and that some of the most profound discoveries of modern science involve nature doing subtle and sophisticated things by means of simple mechanisms.
On the post: DailyDirt: Math & The Mind
order, order
On the post: DailyDirt: Math & The Mind
science as mental immune system
...but it sure looks like baloney to me.
On the post: Father Sues School After It Brings In Cops To Question His Son About Drawing Of A Person Being Hanged
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: German Court Rules Ex-Lovers Must Disappear Consensual Previously Taken Nude Pictures Of The Other
Re: Wait, what about love letters?
On the post: Father Sues School After It Brings In Cops To Question His Son About Drawing Of A Person Being Hanged
Re: Re:
If we, as a society, tend to blame people for not picking up miniscule clues to extremely rare events, then we as a society should get a grip. We must accept the fact that extremely rare disasters sometimes happen, and not expand half our energy looking for someone to blame, and the other half making ourselves utterly blame-proof.
On the post: German Court Rules Ex-Lovers Must Disappear Consensual Previously Taken Nude Pictures Of The Other
unintended consequences
On the other hand, if somebody submits them anonymously to a few sites where such pictures are shared (outside this court's jurisdiction), then he can look at them whenever he likes while keeping his hard drive 100% clean.
I doubt the court meant to set up such incentives.
On the post: Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live
Re: Re: Re:
Other people are searching for and following those links (voting YES) at a rate orders of magnitude higher.
On the post: Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live
clean slate
[Public]: Tough, we like that story. And those photos! Whoah, Nellie!
[Celebrity]: Hey government, may I change my identity?
[Government]: No, that would require work on our part.
[Celebrity]: Yeah, mine too. And I like the good parts of my fame. Well, can you trick the public?
[Government]: What a silly question, haven't you been-- oh, you mean for you? Well, maybe. But only if we don't have to do any work.
[Celebrity]: I don't like work either!
[Public]: Neither do we!
[Celebrity]: So what do we do when we have a big complex technical job to do, but we'd really like somebody else to--
[all together]: GOOGLE!
On the post: Supreme Court Quietly Changes Rulings After Releasing Them; Refuses To Reveal What Those Changes Are
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the big deal?
It's true that the versions on the SC site are sometimes out of date (I missed that on the first reading), but the "final version" is what is published in the United States Reports (apart from the "occasional order formally revising an opinion" that has already been published). So maintaining the archive would be a bit more onerous than I thought, perhaps involving an OCR scanner and a visit to the public library.
If you can point me to one case in which a version not yet published was used in court, I'll eat my words and apologize for missing the point. Twice.
On the post: Supreme Court Quietly Changes Rulings After Releasing Them; Refuses To Reveal What Those Changes Are
Re: Re: What's the big deal?
(There may be intermediate versions that the public can't get, but I fail to see how they would be of any practical use for those not writing a book on the SC).
But now that I think of it, there is one advantage to having access to the closed papers. Not so much in having access to the revision history that the public can't see at all, but in reading the final version before anyone else. This is a separate issue from the secrecy of revision histories, but I can think of a few ways it could be valuable to know what the law will say next year, before my competitors, if I were very wealthy...
On the post: Supreme Court Quietly Changes Rulings After Releasing Them; Refuses To Reveal What Those Changes Are
Re: Re: What's the big deal?
You're pointing to a (hypothetical) problem that has nothing to do with secrecy of the SC revision history.
Next >>